Farewell to Arms

It was a good fight, a just war, but it's over. The Gay Marriage bill that passed the House and Senate and will likely be signed or allowed to become law, marks the final blow to a value system that has suffered losses for the past forty years. The troops that mustered back in the 70's from the Moral Majority were joined in the 90's by Christian Coalition forces and later by conservative policy groups, but they could not turn back the forces that stormed the Capitol last week.

In 1996 the New Hampshire Christian Coalition introduced our "Contract with the New Hampshire Family." I introduced this "bold plan to strengthen the family and restore common-sense values" at a press conference in the Legislative Office Building. Now, nearly twelve years later, nearly every article has suffered defeat or setbacks in the Legislature. It never even occurred to us to include a section protecting the definition of marriage as "one man, one woman."

For years we've been accused of trying to "legislate morality." Well guess what? Last week it was the far Left that legislated morality. Since when was it the business of government to do this? One senator admitted to me that he was frustrated trying to deal with the budget while being "distracted" by the issue of marriage. We can only pray that a new generation of politicians will get back to the work of governing and leave the foundations of society alone.

Religious conservatives now face this challenge: Why should a culture bent on innovation adopt the traditions we hold dear? Our message has always been counter-cultural, but we are most effective when we follow our passion, and for most of us that's not politics. We're far better at worship than political gamesmanship. We need a new movement that springs from the churches, That is cultural not political, that aims at changing hearts not legislation.

It's time for us to lay down our arms, not in defeat or surrender, but in a strategic realignment. We will still be vocal in the public square, a presence in the halls of the Capitol. We will still fight to win. The Trojan War was won from inside the city. Likewise the Culture War will be won from inside the hearts and minds of people. This has always been true. Maybe now we believe it.

State must not cave in to gay lobby

Last November a group organizing an “Old Fashioned Christmas” cancelled a Christmas Tea at a local church because the pastor requested the traditional Christmas story be read alongside “The Night Before Christmas.” A member of the committee declared, “We were afraid of offending someone.” That decision sparked outrage throughout the state and even the nation among those who cherish old-fashioned values.

It’s happening again. In passing HB 437, the New Hampshire legislature has taken the first steps toward redefining traditional marriage, creating “spousal unions” that would include same-sex partnerships. A companion bill, HB 791, strikes words from the existing definition of marriage that prohibit a man from marrying a man and a woman from marrying a woman. Let the outrage begin.

Supporters of the bills push a message of equality. “Please do the right thing, what you know is your heart is right,” urged Rep. Bette Lasky, a co-sponsor of HB 437, “Help our daughters, friends, sons and neighbors live their lives the way I believe we all want to live with the people we love – in peace and dignity.” This high sounding rhetoric, however, glosses over the truth: that the decision to redefine marriage, however well intentioned by some, is the cultural equivalent of a nuclear strike on the foundations of society.

Consider a little history. In June of 1969, gay activists formed the Gay Liberation Front. Their magazine, Come Out! symbolized a political agenda that is clearly stated in their statement of purpose: “We are a revolutionary group of men and women formed with the realization that complete sexual liberation for all people cannot come about unless existing social institutions are abolished. We reject society’s attempt to impose sexual roles and definitions of our nature.”

Today’s gay activists are inheritors of this movement, and while their ideas may be more mainstream and less strident, let’s be clear. The real problem is not, as some would say, Homophobia, but rather “Offendaphobia,” the fear of offending anyone. Nothing else can explain the behavior of elected officials who cower before the well-financed, well-organized gay lobby while ignoring the quiet majority of us who fear for our families and our society if the institution of marriage is threatened.

It is time for that majority to come out and to declare a War on Error – to say without apology that some things are just right and true, and chief among these is marriage between a man and a woman. I am convinced that this conviction is shared by the great majority of men and women, young and old, rich and poor alike and can be the basis for a new constituency that will speak with one voice to those who say they represent us.

As state senators consider following their counterparts in the House, let us urge them to make the right decision and preserve the institution of marriage. This is a war we must win.

(Concord Monitor, April 23, 2007)

The holy war of faith-based funding

As a holy war heats up between those who favor government funding for faith-based organizations and those who do not, let me suggest what may be at the root of the conflict and propose a truce.

What sounds like a bold new initiative is actually an expansion of 4-year-old legislation signed by President Clinton. Known as the Charitable Choice provision of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, it directs government to include faith-based organizations in the competition for federal money.

The intent was to broaden the spectrum of services to the needy while protecting both the rights of recipients and the mission of providers. By opening the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, President Bush has raised the profile of this legislation and signaled his desire to incorporate the faith community as part of government's "safety net." At the same time, he has stirred an important national dialog on the role of religion in public life.

As a minister and the founder of Project Four, a private social services organization, I am especially interested in the response of the religious community to the Bush proposal. A recent study by the Cato Institute cautions faith-based organizations with warnings of regulation, coercion and compromise that will surely accompany federal dollars.

This calls to mind the scene from It's A Wonderful Life where George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) is offered a too-good-to-be-true job by the villain, Potter. Frank Capra turns the camera on their hands as they shake on the deal. That is the defining moment as George draws his hand away, studies it for a moment and realizes how close he came to making a deal with the devil. This is ow some religious leaders view the extended hand of government.

But others see government money as a means to an end and welcome the new partnership. They are the "Grass Roots Josephs," says John DeLullio, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, "who struggle daily to serve the poor (and) should not continue suffering discrimination. It is not fair to praise their unheralded good works to one breath and tell them to go on making bricks without star in the next."


These helpers of the poor and needy stand in tradition of Dwight L. Moody, the famous 19th century evangelist who, when scolded for accepting "tainted" money from mobsters, countered, "The only trouble with tainted money is there t'aint enough of it." After all it is the love of money, not money itself, that is at the root of all kinds of evil.

The friendly fire in this war of words demonstrates the ambivalence with which people of faith view this new proposal. Fact it, when it comes to what we now call social work, people of faith have been on the outside looking in for so long, we're not sure what our role is.

While not presuming to replace government, we are confident that we can leverage federal dollars for better results giving taxpayers a better return on their investment. As partners we move beyond the arrogance of not needing each other and on to a mutual respect.

What we know for sure is that demonstrating true compassion that really helps the needy is what we do best. We specialize in matter of the heart, and we're convinced that many of our "social" problems are heart problems.

It is for this reason that religious leaders have taken two positions. We are excited by the thought of expanding our ministries but troubled to think that those ministries might be compromised by government control.

If ever there is a good and just war, this is it. Those on both sides of the issue care deeply about compassionate ministry and will do it with our without government's help.

The faith-based inItiative is a promising development, and those who urge President Bush to abandon it should think twice before throwing out the baby with the bath water. Those who are ready to shake on the deal should make sure the devil is not in the details.


(Concord Monitor July 22, 2001)

Christian Coalition positions stated (excerpts)

There is, it seems to me, a gulf separating truth and perception of what religious conservatives really want. I am especially concerned about four charges repeated often but unsupported by the facts.

1. Intolerance - The perception is that we think we are right and everyone else is wrong. We are bent on hijacking the political process and will not rest until we impose our values on the rest of the nation. It is true that in a culture that has embraced moral relativism as its cardinal virtue, talk of right and wrong sounds shrill. But religious conservatives will continue to take their stand and engage in the dialogue we call democracy. And for doing so they should not be branded "intolerant."

2. Government as savior - In our view, government clearly plays a vital role ion the life of the nation. It protects its citizens, punishes criminals and maintains order. At its best, it creates an environment in which the family and the church are free to grow. It cannot save the family, but in its proper role it can protect and promote it. Our goal is to ensure that government remains the servant of the family, not its master.

3. Secret agenda - This is the mantra of those who seek to manipulate through fear. To those concerned that religious passions are pressing into the political arena, I ask you to try to understand that for those of us who believe we have witnessed the failure of liberalism (defined as the belief in the goodness of man and of government), the prospect of change is exciting indeed. We want better schools, safer streets, stronger families and less government interference. We believe that the true welfare institutions are the family, the church and the private sector and that, unhindered by government, they can produce the change we all want. Let's talk.

(Boston Globe, March 24, 1996)